School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley.
School of Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine.
Law Hum Behav. 2020 Feb;44(1):51-59. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000360. Epub 2020 Jan 13.
Use of risk assessment instruments in the criminal justice system is controversial. Advocates emphasize that risk assessments are more transparent, consistent, and accurate in predicting re-offending than judicial intuition. Skeptics worry that risk assessments will increase socioeconomic disparities in incarceration. Ultimately, judges make decisions-not risk assessments. This study tests whether providing risk assessment information interacts with a defendant's socioeconomic class to influence judges' sentencing decisions.
Tentatively, socioeconomic status was expected to have a main effect; without an interaction with risk assessment information.
Judges (N = 340) with sentencing experience were randomly assigned to review 1 of 4 case vignettes and sentence the defendant to probation, jail, or prison. Information in the vignettes was held constant, except the defendant's socioeconomic status and whether risk assessment information was provided.
Risk assessment information reduced the likelihood of incarceration for relatively affluent defendants, but the same information increased the likelihood of incarceration for relatively poor defendants. This finding held after controlling for the sex, race, political orientation, and jurisdiction of the judge.
Cuing judges to focus on risk may re-frame how they process socioeconomic status-a variable with opposite effects on perceptions of blameworthiness for past crime versus perceptions of risk for future crime. Providing risk assessment information may have transformed low socioeconomic status from a circumstance that reduced the likelihood of incarceration (by mitigating perceived blameworthiness) to a factor that increased the likelihood of incarceration (by increasing perceived risk). Under some circumstances, risk assessment information may increase sentencing disparities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
在刑事司法系统中使用风险评估工具存在争议。倡导者强调，风险评估在预测再犯罪方面比法官的直觉更透明、更一致、更准确。怀疑论者担心风险评估会增加监禁中社会经济差异。最终，法官做出决定，而不是风险评估。本研究检验了提供风险评估信息是否会与被告的社会经济阶层相互作用，从而影响法官的量刑决策。
初步认为社会经济地位会产生主要影响；与风险评估信息没有相互作用。
具有量刑经验的法官（N=340）被随机分配到 4 个案例简介中的 1 个进行审查，并将被告判处缓刑、监禁或入狱。简介中的信息保持不变，除了被告的社会经济地位和是否提供风险评估信息。
风险评估信息降低了相对富裕被告入狱的可能性，但相同的信息增加了相对贫困被告入狱的可能性。在控制了法官的性别、种族、政治倾向和司法管辖区后，这一发现仍然成立。
提示法官关注风险可能会重新构建他们处理社会经济地位的方式——这个变量对过去犯罪的罪责感和对未来犯罪的风险感有相反的影响。提供风险评估信息可能已经将低社会经济地位从降低入狱可能性的因素（通过减轻被认为的罪责感）转变为增加入狱可能性的因素（通过增加被认为的风险）。在某些情况下，风险评估信息可能会增加量刑差距。（PsycINFO 数据库记录（c）2020 APA，保留所有权利）。
